Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Driessen (lobbyist)

:{{la|Paul Driessen (lobbyist)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Driessen_(lobbyist) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Paul Driessen (lobbyist)}})

I could find no evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. All my searching turned up only things written BY him; nothing ABOUT him. Unreferenced since 2005 (yes, really!) His books do not appear to be notable either, and I will also be AfDing Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, the one book that has a Wikipedia article. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. One book with 63 GS cites. Not enough yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
• Comment As an alternative to deletion, this article could be redirected to Eco-imperialism - a term he apparently coined and with which he is most strongly associated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

::The term seems to have been around for a while before Driessen used it. In any case, it may be useful to merge some content from this article into Eco-imperialism#Driessen's text. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt per W:V, WP:SPAM, WP:RESUME, and WP:HOAX. He's not [http://atlasnetwork.org/blog/2010/11/senior-fellows/ an Atlas fellow], nor is he [http://www.core-online.org/ anywhere on the CORE website]. He appears to be a consultant for [http://www.cfact.org/about/staff/ two small] [http://www.cdfe.org/about-us/staff-and-advisors/ interest groups]. The other stuff appears to be crufty resume filler. 21:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
• Delete Has not received any coverage from anyone else enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep There is more than enough content in the article to make it worthy to be retained. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep To delete those whose opinions we disagree with can itself be Eco-imperialism. --Kevobee (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: This comment is this user's first and only edit.)

::Huh? I don't believe anyone has expressed an opinion for or against the CONTENT of what this guy is saying. Just his lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

:: This whole page is opinionated. Driessen is notable because I needed to look him up. Further he has challenged both climate change and Green Peace. Who are the bigger lobbyist advocates? Anyone in the midst of a witch hunt is notable.--Kevobee (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The article makes him out to be a non-notable fossil-fuel apologist (note: those are two separate things — it is entirely possible to be a notable fossil-fuel apologist, but there is no evidence here that he is one). He is certainly not notable for the originality of his ideas — they appear to be whatever is most expedient for his corporate sponsors. The one source in the current version of the article (the Mother Jones piece) mentions him but is not sufficiently in-depth in its coverage of him for WP:GNG; anyway that's only one and its neutrality on this subject is questionable. We also don't have evidence of sufficient academic impact (per Xxanthippe's comment above) nor the multiple published book reviews that might allow a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question. Removing '(lobbyist)' with the above search tool produces maybe a dozen or so newspaper articles from around the US over a 30 yr period quoting him, at least one book review (Moscow Daily News, Idaho), and a column or two by him. Is this sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria of WP:BASIC? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Most authors pass notability based on book reviews, per AUTHOR #3. And most authors have websites where they collect "Media" mentions and this is no exception.[http://www.eco-imperialism.com/excerpts-reviews/book-reviews/] Driessen has done the work of finding the book reviews for us. However all of the "reviews" are really un-published comments from individuals, they are not published in reliable sources, so they can't be used to show notability. Unless there are reliable sources that discuss Driessen, or his works, it wouldn't pass notability. -- GreenC 00:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.